We can only hope there has been work behind the scenes and we are one of the "additional customers" the article makes mention of.
I think we can rightly be indignant if there is no plan for IAMD in the upcoming defence strategy update.
I should note however, we will need more than just patriot. We will need a tier 1 anti ballistic missile system like thaad or arrow as well. I think that will be the more complex part of the puzzle.
Under FSP2020, that “Tier 1“ was costed from memory at around $25B and MRAD around $7b…
That is why we don’t have it.
Because their funding (among others) went to subs and Hunters…
Lolcake
Active Member
I guess we will happily blow 10s of billions of doing things 5 x more than what they are actually worth via NDIS than prepare our country in what is the worst security deterioration in decades. Because why not!Under FSP2020, that “Tier 1“ was costed from memory at around $25B and MRAD around $7b…
That is why we don’t have it.
Because their funding (among others) went to subs and Hunters…
Lets not forget the govt school building scheme. Absolutely criminal costings for basic buildings!
Agree.Under FSP2020, that “Tier 1“ was costed from memory at around $25B and MRAD around $7b…
That is why we don’t have it.
Because their funding (among others) went to subs and Hunters…
That smokescreen however can only delay action on IAMD for so long one would think.
My read of the tea leaves is that the US demands anti missile protection in FBW and in Darwin as a requirement to continue deploying people and assets to these locations. And they will not bring their own without at least an equal commitment from us.
I can't imagine USN SSNs parking long term in Stirling without cover. Or B2 bombers rotating out of Tindal without the same.
Perhaps we commit to patriot and the US brings thaad.
Takao
The Bunker Group
What smokescreen? If there is insufficient money, then they can't get purchased. Note that was based on 2020 funding; COVID and the various conflicts (and most recently the rise of AI) has driven prices up.... it's unlikely you can get a capability for $7 b nowadays.
Noting of course that there are two other major issues:
First the worldwide level of production is lower than 2025 usage rates, there simply isn't spare ammunition to buy. And yes, I note the promise to increase production of Patriot...but I've read a lot of promises from Defence companies.
Secondly is what are we defending? Above mentions Stirling and Tindal - that's at least two units. Darwin is another. The $7 b in 2020 was for one unit, but in the past 7 years we have seen PLA capability increase faster than expected and the more rapid increase in drones than expected. So now we have to defend multiple sites, including in the south-east, and have to fund additional layers.
Other complicating factors are the demands of the US (as in, their orders automatically get a higher priority than anyone else's), the increased money being funnelled to the fighter force under the auspices of IAMD and (mainly L-M) OEMs not delivering capabilities promised, the approaching obsolesce of the Patriot and Standard family, the workforce issues in raising such units, the shortage of trades and materiel to support more passive measures and the overall fascination with shooty things over passive defences.
the Australian IAMD problem is quite complex and there are very few in uniform, let alone out of, that understand the scope, the interlaced needs and the ability to fund/crew various parts. It's not a case of just buy a Bty and sit it at Tindal/FBW/wherever like many of our 'great strategic thinkers' believe it to be.
Yup.
IN 20205, USD $8.5b got you 2x Patriot Fire Units + radar + training systems and support plus an inventory of 56 or so missiles...
AUD$7b in 2020 dollars isn't going far at that cost and I can't see RAAF setting up their trade training school and only battery at Tindal...
Never said this would not be cheap.
Perhaps smoke screen is the wrong analogy, but:
- We can spend 350 billion on submarines, but not 10% of that on missile defence to protect the one vulnerability those submarines have.
- We can base hundreds of billions dollars of equipment in bases that are within missile range of potential adversaries.
- We can ask allies (whom are progressively getting more and more grumpy) to base hundreds of billions of their own equipment and thousands of their own people in said same bases without missile defence.
The wording in the the last defence strategy was that missile defence eyond NASAMS would be paused for two reasons, being;
- To prioritise a battle management system
- In recognition that the missile defence production backlog would not enable ordering.
I get that money is scarce, and that said scarce money went to subs and ships.
I get that there is no way we could procure and have a patriot system immediately.
I do however think that a government can find 30-50 billion to fund proper missile defence over a 10 year period, which is what it would likely take to achieve full capability.
Ah huh, it was interesting some of the thoughts about how to do the new watercraft. They will need either qualified WOs or a Captain/Major as skippers, where are all these experienced and certified mid career personnel coming from?
They would be worse off trying to find qualified mariners than technical and engineers. At least for the techos there's old farts like me who would consider putting a uniform on for mid career entry as a SNCO or O3-4.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Because we decided to spend $350 b on new SSN and another significant chunk on an Anzac-class replacement without significantly increasing the budget, nor significantly altering the structure of the 'balanced force' (despite saying we weren't a balanced force any longer).
There isn't additional money being provided for IAMD (and the majority of additional money provided was for specific capabilities) so you have to cut something. And of the ~200 projects in the IIP, the majority of funding is concentrated in the largest 15%-ish. So you need to cut something big.
There is also the cultural issue - the majority of thinking is based on early 2000s where you only need to defend northern bases, not the SSN. Trying to change that is bloody hard, and it becomes a "do both", not do either. So your $10 b is closer to $18 b because of the fighter-fetish and northern bases.
Now there is an excellent point. Why do it?
I remember discussing how future warfare, with its emphasis on deep strike and the weakness of modern logistic systems, would mean the 'Iron Mounds' of logistics that DESERT STORM showed were obsolete. So why are we putting so much in the north? Especially when they are already in range of PRC weapons systems? 1/3 of the F-35 fleet, an Army Bde (as token as it is now), Learmonth becoming a major logistics node at the cost of $b, arguably 3 Bde in Townsville (the last remnants of genuine land power) - all have $b being poured into them and have been in range of boring PRC systems for years..... why?
Have bases up there for training? 100%. Have bases up there for lily-padding strikes? 100%. Have a Navy base up there for Patrol Boats? 100% yes. Have significant numbers up there permanently? No. Pull it all south into the Brisbane-Adelaide-Melbourne triangle. That alone would complicate the threat picture, not to mention saving $m on annual logistics and improve the HR issues.
Are we asking - or are they? Because if it's the latter, they bring their own kit. you know, like the US is asking of us (and yes, historically Australia has dodged doing that (artillery, medical, air support, armoured support, etc in Iraq and Afghanistan as clear examples), but its got us into the mess now)
Coming along =/= in service, and neither equals doesn't need $m more. As for production, LM have promised ever so much over time....have they met 1/3 of those promises? Let me just check their last significant promise to the ADF (72x combat capable F-35 - oh, Block 4 is delayed again? And costs more? And won't be delivered fully? oh....). SAM production numbers have not notably increased in the past 3 years, despite Ukraine and Israel/Red Sea operations. They will - but not soon. And we won't be the first customer (that'll be the US).
So what are you cutting?
I don't disagree that IAMD is important. It is. There is an entire system, and you are focusing on MR GBAD which is fine, its important too. But at least twice the GotD has said that there are other priorities. So, you have about 25 projects to play with - which ones do you cut? Noting that to achieve your $30 - 50 b, you are probably going to have to cut at least 3 or 4 projects (as in fully delete from the IIP - nothing left).
To further give you an idea, each of those rings is worth about $330 b (page 9 of the 2024 IIP). To get your $30 b, which 9% are you cutting? Note that the 5% in missile defence gets you what we are getting now, so some eNASAM, some cUAS and some C2. No passive defence, no MRGBAD, no BM/hypersonic defence. So you can't count that.
Takao
The Bunker Group
We have started growing some of our officers now, there are 4 or 5 slots on every ship-driver/PWO/whatever it's called now course. In fact, a mate was called in as an assessor on the latest one and one of the Army students was the top student, which is really good. I genuinely don't know what the plan is to now grow that experience - personally I don't think it's a case of going to 10 FSB and training on the LCM-8s. For this kit, I think we should be sending them to the patrol boat fleet and the Anzac's (noting that they are similar in size to the LCH).
But.....your point remains. The crewing for the landing craft has a plan, but I'm not convinced that the throughput of DFR will be enough, nor that we (as Army) have fully understood the maritime domain expectations. I know a few of my RAN peers have been told to stand-by in case they have to step sideways into the holes, I also know that Army is taking it seriously. I just worry that the ocean isn't something to treat with anything but the deepest respect, and Army has historically been lackadaisical about recognising SME needs (see APC/IFV crew, Avn spt outside RAEME and anyone not in a traditional stream).
As for techs? It's a good thing that we don't have new frigates, old frigates, RAN patrol boats, ABF and Army maritime all hunting the same people. And even if they did, good thing Marine engineers are a dime a dozen.....
I think the point of excessively forward basing equipment and people has merit. If it can't be protected, then perhaps it should not be there. Equipment can be easily mobilised from Adelaide in my view.
The American question is an interesting one. Are they pushing for access to our bases, or do we want them here for protection and support. A bit of both, but I think the pendulum is more towards us wanting them here.
Yes LM has a checkered record, but expanding an existing mature pac 3 production line has significantly less risk than a massive upgrade to the world's most complicated aircraft. My view is they will deliver over time.
The budget argument is complex. I don't think it is zero sum. I see the defence budget growing inevitably to the 3.5% one way or the other over the course of the next 10 years (most likely in incremental steps). I don't see that being at the expense of schools and hospitals either.
That is just my personal view. I think the external context is forcing Australia to this outcome and it has little choice in the matter. Others may have a different take.
Governments also have remarkable gymnastic abilities to make money appear. Taxation relies heavily on resource exports. These historically trend above forecast, and in a scarce and deglobalised world, these will become even more profitable. Governments have enormus flexibility when predicting future revenue.
Governments around the world are also expanding debt (even Germany has cracked open the credit card lately) and Australia still has significant capacity to fund military growth through debt.
I recently came close to pulling the trigger on going mid career as an O3/4 engineer to support a project. Within my specialties there are multiple roles I could stack into one or two reserve days a week. The O5 who was considering it retired and I was needed elsewhere as a civilian.We have started growing some of our officers now, there are 4 or 5 slots on every ship-driver/PWO/whatever it's called now course. In fact, a mate was called in as an assessor on the latest one and one of the Army students was the top student, which is really good. I genuinely don't know what the plan is to now grow that experience - personally I don't think it's a case of going to 10 FSB and training on the LCM-8s. For this kit, I think we should be sending them to the patrol boat fleet and the Anzac's (noting that they are similar in size to the LCH).
But.....your point remains. The crewing for the landing craft has a plan, but I'm not convinced that the throughput of DFR will be enough, nor that we (as Army) have fully understood the maritime domain expectations. I know a few of my RAN peers have been told to stand-by in case they have to step sideways into the holes, I also know that Army is taking it seriously. I just worry that the ocean isn't something to treat with anything but the deepest respect, and Army has historically been lackadaisical about recognising SME needs (see APC/IFV crew, Avn spt outside RAEME and anyone not in a traditional stream).
As for techs? It's a good thing that we don't have new frigates, old frigates, RAN patrol boats, ABF and Army maritime all hunting the same people. And even if they did, good thing Marine engineers are a dime a dozen.....
There's a few people who are totally against mid career entry, they perceive people are queue jumping and getting something they haven't earned. The truth is, they are (or should be) highly experienced specialists (often with multiple specialises) who are critical to delivering capability, who are not competing for promotion to higher rank.
The alternatives are expensive consultants, or underpaid public servants (who either can't do the job or will leave for more money). If a civilian is good enough to do a job in one or two days a week, in a project or sustainment environment, let them out in a uniform and do it. This will free up the career oriented to get up to speed on operations.
NDIS, if run the way it was intended I the first place, would be of benefit to the economy. Recipients aren't ripping off the system, fraudulent businesses, bad actors and corrupt/incompetent public servants are.
These are the same people who ripped off the COVID economic schemes, child care, aged care, home insulation, school halls and the other GFC stimulus schemes. Don't blame the disabled for the actions of the self entitled and criminally inclined grifters who rip off society in general.
Nearly 3% of the australian population is recieving NDIS payments. 3%!
There are about 750,000 recipents of the 48 billion dollar budget.
I stuggle to see how $48 billion on NDIS can benefit the ecomony.
In my street, there are 2 indigenous autisic ladies, who do need care. They are both in homes of their own, and both have 24 hour care provided by 2 to 3 carers each. They both require care for sure, but they take up 2 x 3 bedroom houses. Should there be a share home in some cases?
There are about 750,000 recipents of the 48 billion dollar budget.
I stuggle to see how $48 billion on NDIS can benefit the ecomony.
In my street, there are 2 indigenous autisic ladies, who do need care. They are both in homes of their own, and both have 24 hour care provided by 2 to 3 carers each. They both require care for sure, but they take up 2 x 3 bedroom houses. Should there be a share home in some cases?
Lolcake
Active Member
That of course is who i was referring to.
Way 0/T I got digi bashed by some here and told that rort charging of services on NDIS and aged care plans was just pub talk. My aunty’s footpath need a few dozen bricks so the agency that provides her care package sent a contractor to quote to fix the work.. Pick attached. Quote was $12500 …which was rejected as she only had $8700 left in her care package funds for the year. I just wonder how many of these go through. The same aunty had a $10k bathroom built for $38000 plus $4000 to dispose of the waste of the old bathroom. …and 2 quotes for a 3 step ramp of $91k and $72k which a local builder did for around $4000. thing is the agencies don’t give a stuff as they get paid on each care package allocated.
Attachments
Last edited:
Lolcake
Active Member
Deep lying corruption and price gouging. Absolutely laughable. Where is the accountability.
Noting the resourcing limitations and also noting CDF at the Naval expo back in November sating publicly he expected “IAMD” to get “some attention” during NDS / IIP 2026, what do you “expect” in that space?
Reinstatement of the previous plan for MR GBAD? Or the other end of the spectrum, noting the seemingly “random” NIOA plan to start manufacturing Mistral 3 locally? A bit of both maybe?
Nioa teams with MBDA on Mistral - Australian Defence Magazine
Australia could become the first country outside France to produce the Mistral, one of the world’s most advanced air defence missile systems | Max Blenkin
www.australiandefence.com.au
I also note the apparent “problem” of acquisition difficulties due to production blockages of medium ranged air defence systems, particularly from the US hasn’t stopped anyone except us (apparently) from proceeding to acquire the systems or interceptor missiles for them…
Romania 2025
Denmark 2025
Kuwait 2025
U.S. Clears Major Patriot Missile Defense Upgrade for Kuwait to Reinforce Gulf Air Defense Shield
U.S. Clears Major Patriot Air Defense Missile Upgrade for Kuwait to Reinforce Gulf Air Defense Shield
www.armyrecognition.com
Germany 2024
The Nertherlands 2024
Netherlands cleared to acquire new and upgraded Patriot launching stations - European Security & Defence
The US State Department has approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Netherlands of new and upgraded Patriot M903 launching stations.
euro-sd.com
Spain 2023
The order book may well be pretty full, but we decided against this acquisition, well before all of the above…
Last edited:
Takao
The Bunker Group
At a guess? At best a continuation of 2024, with increased focus on passive and cUAS systems. Likely direction that Army launchers are to shift to being more common - so that instead of buying a Patriot or Standard, we buy any SAM that will fit in a HiMARs pod. Or similar. That gives CJOPS options - and the threat doesn't know if it's a GMLR, AShM, SAM or hypersonic missile. And, lets not kid ourselves, a common launcher should be simple to build from an industry point of view.
I don't think there will be land based MR GBAD effect in service for a while; certainly not one capable of defending multiple points. I think all the FIC will be in place, and it will be a quick capability to raise, but the missile units will be the last pieces.